Redacted YPG JA 2024-73 20240903.pdf

Control No.: MICC 2024-73

CUI//SP-PROCURE//FEDCON

JUSTIFICATION REVIEW DOCUMENT

FAR PART 6 JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL FOR OTHER THAN

FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Program/Equipment: The Yuma Proving Ground, Army Test Evaluation Command, Flight Services Division requests Aviation Support Services.

Authority: 10 United States Code §3204(a)(1) as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1 - Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

Amount: $2,919,247.00

Prepared by: … …………………………….

Contracting Officer: ……………………

Technical: …………………

Requirements: ………………….…

Control No: MICC 2024-73

Reviews: I have reviewed this justification and find it adequate to support other than full and open competition.

Program Manager: …………………

Small Business Professional: …………………

Local Legal Counsel: …………………

Director, MICC-YPG: …………………

Assistant Director, Small Business Program: …………………

MICC Office of Counsel: …………………

FAR Part 6 Justification and Approval for Other than Full and Open Competition

1. Contracting Activity: U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command - Yuma Proving Ground (MICC–YPG), U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground (USAYPG), Yuma, Arizona.

2. Description of Action: The Flight Services Division located at USAYPG requests approval to extend the Firm-Fixed-Priced Contract W91151-19-C-0007 for Aviation Support Services (AVSS) awarded to LOGMET, LLC for six-months with a one-month option due to a change in the acquisition strategy of the follow-on procurement. The period of performance for the six-month extension is 01 September 2024 through 28 February 2025 and the period of performance for the one-month option is 01 March 2025 through 31 March 2025. This contract modification will provide for continuation of mission essential AVSS located at USAYPG and will be funded using Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds. This action will prevent a break in service while the procurement of the follow-on contract is completed with a projected award in late February 2025 and provide time for a contractor transition period if needed.

3. Description of Supplies/Services: The USAYPG is a Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) that conducts RDT&E missions for Department of Defense (DoD), commercial customers and other agencies that have formal agreements with USAYPG.

The contractor provides AVSS at USAYPG, to provide administration, management, and operational support in the areas of ground and flight operations, aviation maintenance, and airfield services.

Period Period of Performance (POP) Estimated Value

6 Month Extension 01 SEP 2024 to 28 FEB 2025 $2,506,326.00

One-Month Option 01 MAR 2025 to 31 MAR 2025 $412,921.00

Total Value $2,919,247.00

4. Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

a. As described at FAR 6.302-1(a)(2), when the supplies or services required by the agency are available only from one responsible source, or for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, from only one or a limited number of responsible sources, and no other types of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements, full and open competition need not be provided for. For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, services may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that an award to any other source would also result in unacceptable delays and negatively affect USAYPG's support of mission tests as they will need to recruit and hire qualified and cleared personnel. There would be no Phase-in period and no guarantee of institutional knowledge which gives us risk of mission failure. Not having qualified personnel, i.e. Air Traffic Controllers or Aircraft Mechanics, would shut down the airfield causing all aircraft and the SOCOM Jump School to be grounded and scheduled mission tests to be delayed or cancelled. This would be a detriment to the government as the cost would be significant due to the impact to the mission tests, other contracts, and personnel affected and lack of maintenance on the aircraft. The delays could range from 30-45 days or more, depending on the strategy of the new contractor, the scheduled tests and maintenance. The average duration of the Flight Division’s participation is approximately one week where contractor support is required, but any initial delays caused by unfamiliarity with procedures in the Flight Division’s execution of their aspects of the test has a corollary to furthers delays to the other facets of the test. Property inventory delays of at least two weeks and Ground/Flight Operations Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) final approvals prior to flight line operations are estimated at approximately two weeks.

The need for a seven-month extension can be attributed to two primary causes: 1) additional time expended in revising and staffing changes to the performance work statement (PWS); and 2) change to the source selection approach just prior to solicitation. The occurrence of these two adjustments to the requirement have impacted the original planned award date of 31 August 2024 which has been revised now to 28 February 2025.

This extension of the current contract will allow for continued support of aviation support services while the follow-on contract is awarded, and transition is made to another contract while retaining the ability to provide a consistent level of effort without a break in service. Without continuing contract coverage, disruption of on-going requirements will result in critical mission failure and unacceptable delays in, among other areas, critical test, and evaluation support, which will negatively impact testing.

Any break in service is unacceptable and will also disrupt critical functions in support of the mission at USAYPG. This action will prevent a break in service while the follow-on contract is awarded, and transition is made to another contract.

b. Alternatives.

1) Suspension of services: Suspension of operations is not a viable option. The requirement for AVSS is directly tied to the vital needs of support of the Flight Services Division. The impact of the failure to extend the contract would immediately result in the cessation of support of all US Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) assigned test support missions at Laguna Army Airfield (LAAF), USAYPG. Failure to provide these services would have a major impact on USAYPG supporting tenant activities and Mission test and evaluation events.

2) Use in-house resources: This is not a viable option. Government personnel cuts and shifting to reliance on contractors to perform critical functions over the years have resulted in the transference of technical expertise from the Government to private industry. The amount of time required to recruit and hire qualified Government personnel through the civilian personnel system, and then train the personnel required to support current and upcoming requirements, render this alternative unrealistic and unachievable in the time available to do so Additionally, there are no current in-house Government employees who have the expertise or experience to perform the requirements of the AVSS contract.

3) Competitively awarding a bridge contract: The current contract expiration is six weeks away; this is not a viable alternative. A follow-on award of a competitive contract is currently underway. There is insufficient time for MICC-YPG to compete an interim contract before the current AVSS contract expires on 31 August 2024. A new contractor would need a transition period greater than the time remaining on the current contract in order to become familiar with the AVSS contract requirements. A new contractor would need to recruit, relocate, transfer property, staff, develop operations, and acquire other resources.

c. Impact if justification not approved. Any break in service is unacceptable and will disrupt operations at USAYPG. Without the continuity of the AVSS contract would immediately result in the cessation of support of all ATEC assigned test support missions at LAAF. These tests have a direct impact on the US Army’s world-wide mission.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: The Contracting Officer shall publish the notices required by FAR 5.201 and any bids or proposals received shall be considered.

a. Effective Competition: The current AVSS contract was awarded following a competitive source selection. This modification is an extension to the existing contract.

A Sources Sought Notice (SSN) was posted on SAM.gov from 24 June 2024 through 1 July 2024, which resulted in no companies being capable of providing the required AVSS. The results are in Table 1 of Section 8. Therefore, this is a sole source action as effective competition is not possible.

b. Subcontracting Competition: The current AVSS contract is a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) set aside, and the incumbent 100 percent self-performs.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: As indicated in the preceding section (6.a) above, the current AVSS contract was awarded following a competitive source selection. The approval of this Justification and Approval (J&A) will provide the time required to successfully compete and award a follow-on acquisition. A SSN was posted to SAM.gov. See section 8 below for details.

8. Market Research: In accordance with DFARS 205.205-71, DFARS 206.302-1(d), and DFARS Procedures, Guidance and Information (PGI) 206.302-1(d), a SSN was posted to SAM.gov on 24 June 2024 for seven days and the results are identified in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Sources Sought Responses

Company Name Business Size Capable / Not Capable

A capability assessment was conducted based on the information the companies provided in response to the SSN. Of the nine responses received, only two were determined to be capable of performing the services; however, neither of the companies can meet the required period of performance due to mobilization, in-processing incumbent staff and new hires, 100 percent GFP inventory transfer, and submitting deliverables.

9. Interested Sources: The capability statements submitted by the nine vendors in response to the SSN have been reviewed by the requiring activity who has determined that seven of the nine companies did not demonstrate their ability to meet the technical requirements to perform in accordance with the Performance Work Statement. Two companies have demonstrated their technical capabilities but cannot meet the period of performance. To date, no other sources have written to express interest in the acquisition.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement History: The AVSS requirement has historically been awarded under small business set-aside competitive procedures.

1) Contract numbers and dates of the last several contracts for these same requirements.

Contract Number Contractor Set-aside Contract

Amount

Period of

Performance

W9124R-11-C-0003 Boreal Aviation SBSA $6,722,455 01 Feb 11 – 30 Apr 13

W9124R-13-C-0004 LOGMET LLC SBSA $18,469,414 01 Apr 13 – 28 Feb 19

W91151-19-C-0007 LOGMET LLC SDVOSB $17,811,066 15 Feb 19 – 31 Aug 24

2) The competitive status of these actions. The previous contracts were set aside for small businesses.

(a) Contract W9124R-11-C-0003 was awarded to Boreal Aviation. The acquisition was solicited as a 100 percent small business set-aside and received 2 proposals.

(b) Contract W9124R-13-C-0004 was awarded to LOGMET, LLC. The acquisition was solicited as a 100 percent small business set-aside and received 5 proposals.

(c) Contract W91151-19-C-0007 was awarded to LOGMET, LLC. The acquisition was solicited as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business and received 7 proposals.

3) Contract W9124R-13-C-0004 was extended twice to provide additional time for a competitive follow-on award using authority 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6.302-1 - Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

11. Technical Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

…………………………………….. Date: See digital signature

12. Requirements Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated cost or price to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. This determination will be made using cost analysis. As a part of this basis, certified cost or pricing data will be required.

14. Contracting Officer Certification: I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of Aviation Support Services on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of Title 10 United States Code Section 3204(a)(1) as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The estimated value of the modification is $2.9 million for a six-month option period of performance from 1 September 2024 through 28 February 2025 and an additional one-month option period of performance from 1 March 2025 through 31 March 2025. The approval is subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services or supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

SCOTT D. KUKES

Alternate Advocate for Competition

U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX